Dear Editor,
In past editions of your paper you quote the developer John Ahern
of Indaver as saying of the toxic and municipal incineration for which
he is seeking planning permission as "nice to have" but
a "must have" piece of infrastructure".

A toxic incinerator is never "nice
to have" and certainly in Cork Harbour is not a "must have".
There are 4 in house incinerators already in the Ringaskiddy area
dealing with parmaceutical waste and recovery and 5 companies moving
towards clean wind turbines. With such a small amount of toxic waste
coming from this area, why should the developer Indaver decide that
on this site we are responsible for the toxic waste of the whole country?

Could I suggest that incineration would
be the catalyst for the stagnation of our recycling efforts. The aim
of a commercial tolling incineration industry would be in having a
guaranteed waste stream and its continuous supply would put too much
pressure on our policy of prevention and reduce, reuse and recycle.
Besides, the large amounts of ash from incineration, demands landfill
expansion.
You cannot ignore the economics of incineration, which would seem
to need to be subsidised by higher landfill charges to the taxpayer,
particularly entering an era of climate change.

What cannot be ignored also is the British
Society for Ecological Medicine (Dec 2005) which concluded that no
new waste incinerators should be built. “Incinerators are in
reality particulate generators, and their use cannot be justified
now that it is clear how toxic and carcinogenic fine particulates
are.”

There are now viable alternatives, which
are healthier, and are kinder to the environment. More importantly
a social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods must be assessed
as soon as possible.

Objections to this toxic and municipal
incinerator which will have a chimney stack 85 meters high have to
be sent to An Bord Pleanala before the end of January. The truck traffic
movements to the site will be an extra 212 trucks a day.